The Netherlands hasn't had a single-party government... ever, I think. Definitely not since the Second World War.
Coalition governments work very well here, because no party can get too radical in what they do. If they do, the other coalition parties stop supporting them, the government falls, and we can go vote again. This happens rather regularly (I'd say there's only a 50-50 chance any government will rule for the full four years in the Netherlands), which I consider a good thing. Governments need to be kept in check, and voters are pretty good with showing their displeasure. Any political party having an absolute majority would scare me tremendously.

The Dutch tradition of coalition governments (usually consisting of two of the three large parties, and one smaller party to give the government parties a majority of seats) also means that people are very willing to vote for smaller parties, as just half a dozen seats (out of 150 total) could be enough for the party to get into the government and make a real difference, while 15-20 seats virtually guarantees that whichever party "won" the election is going to want to talk to the smaller party to see if they can't find enough common ground to form a coaltion together. So far this hasn't had too many positive effects yet, but we could see, for example, a government featuring the green party any election now...

(If you really want to know how things work in the Netherlands, I recently read a rather good overview here: quirksmode.org/politicsnew/ (Purposefully not turned into a clickable link, as the pages are still under construction, and really up for preview only.))

Thanks Aan. That's interesting. I know many other countries have Coalitions, and it happens here to a degree, too, usually in a minority government when the Prime Minister and his party link up with another party to make things happen.

This is just so different, essentially an overthrow (no confidence vote) of the sitting PM by a coalition of the three other parties that make up the opposition. I really hope it happens, if just for the sake of being different and interesting. I have a feeling it won't go well, though. The PM is quite the powermonger and most Canadians are tainted by the American elections and ideals. (We don't live in a democracy and our governor general appoints whom he/she pleases according to who has the most likely ability to govern-usually the person who has won the most seats in the election.)

@Miiru--it is a bit confusing. But then so is your politics. :P I spent a lot of a time trying to figure out what the heck was going on down there this year. :)   

Ours differs in that we have more than two parties that have a place in parliament (like your congress? somewhat?) Our Prime Minister's party won only 37 percent of the seats. The other groups took the rest and now that they've joined forces they actually make up the majority. I hope our Governor General (Cool chick appointed by the Queen) has the guts to do something a little wild and different and let the majority give it a go.

NZ has had coalition governments of various varieties since we switched to a proportional representation system in the mid 90s.  It's been pretty non-dramatic.  So far, the major party in every coalition has had a plurality of support (ie got more votes than anyone else) which I understand isn't the case in Canada.  But the first proportional election ended up in such a close heat that a smaller party was effectively a kingmaker.  The negotiations to form that government took several weeks and annoyed the crap out of the 90% of voters who didn't vote for the little party, and eventually the 5% of voters who voted for the small party on the understanding it wouldn't support the party it eventually went with. 

We've had a couple of coalitions implode mid-term, mainly because the little party in the coalition couldn't cope with the decisions made by the bigger party - the government I described above fell apart over the sale of an airport - another over whether NZ would send troops to Afghanistan after 9/11.  Neither of the implosions have resulted in fresh elections - the small parties splintered and the large party cobbled together a working majority out of the remnants and a few other hangers-on. 

What seems to work (here) is a good ability to maintain relationships between the two parties, and safety valves so that the little parties can effectively express their views counter to their coalition partner without bringing down the government.  The little parties tend to get eaten alive if they can't express their reason for being there in the first place, or throw their weight around too much.  There's a tendency in recent years to manage this with supply and confidence agreements rather than formal coalitions - Party X might get a ministerial post outside of Cabinet in return for an agreement to support the government on issues of confidence and supply, but not necessarily all its policies.  Keeps the major government party on its toes when it comes to passing unpopular legislation, because it might not be able to without help from its friends.

Jendaiya wrote:

An article that explains it nicely:  http://thetyee.ca/Views/2008/12/03/ProCoalition/

It sounds like the reason for most of the outcry is that Canadians are only just discovering they have a Westminster parliamentary system afterall ;)

Last edited by mabinogi (2008-12-04 03:38:51)

mabinogi wrote:

Jendaiya wrote:

An article that explains it nicely:  http://thetyee.ca/Views/2008/12/03/ProCoalition/

It sounds like the reason for most of the outcry is that Canadians are only just discovering they have a Westminster parliamentary system afterall ;)

Yup. And it's freaking them out, since they thought we did it all American-style. :)


Anyways, crisis averted. The Governor General--who just went down several levels on my respect-o-meter--has allowed the PM to adjourn parliament until late January. I knew she would do it, tactically speaking she had to let him try. However. It was a gutless move. It does give people a chance to get informed about and used to the idea of a Coalition and the way our system of government works. (Did they stop teaching this in school or something?)

It also gives Harper a chance to get his act together and consider working with the opposition. Plus, by the end on January enough time may have passed for an election to be called, even though we just had one in October.

I really wish he'd stop badmouthing Quebec. It's infantile, divisive and serves him so well it's ridiculous. I don't want Canada to split up over this.

Oh, that was nice, SS. :)

Very accurate, too. Except the monkeys. Sorta.  :)

Binky - well, they still haven't got any seats in the Federal House of Representatives, but they've well and truly replaced the Democrats as the strongest third party, and have five Federal Senate seats - Labor has 32, and the Coalition 37, so Labor needs the support of both the Greens and either "Family First" (ugh), or the one independent (even more ugh) to get anything through.

The truly excellent thing about that, is that Stephen Conroy can go on all he likes about his stupid Internet filter, but it's just not going to happen, 'cause the Greens don't want it.

Also, to add a particularly intellectual bent to this conversation, I was watching Cash Cab tonight (quiz game show in taxi), and one of the questions was, "Prime Minister is often abbreviated to PM in the parliamentary system of government. What does MP stand for?"

The (rather cute male) passenger said wryly, "Oh, they must be Major Partiers."

So that's how I'll think of MP from now on. :)

@Marian-- That is so cute, major partiers. I get funny little images in my head of these stuffy old political MPs being major partiers. *g*

German governments are generally more stable than Dutch ones, but they're *always* coalition governments.  (Unless you're talking federal states, where we have Bavaria being ruled singularly by the same abhorrent party for ca. 20 years *shudders*) Non-coalition governments give me the heebie jeebies. Seriously, that's just *scary*. No one party should have that much power.

The Coalition of Doom (that no-one really wants) its the two big parties (conservatives and social democrats) grudgingly uniting under one umbrella until they can go at each others' throats again come election year, each hoping to regain enough majority to be rid of the other half. Oh election year 2009, how am I not looking forward to you!

Although, when we had a green/red (i.e., greens/social democrats) governments a few years back, we made steps to abandon nuclear power and instituted gay partnerships. That, at least, wasn't too shabby.

~sigh~

Binky wrote:

I'd read about the proposed Australian Great Internet Filter, and wondered what on earth the country was on, to consider such a gross intrusion on people's rights.  It's one thing to target reprehensible behaviour (which sane countries do by prosecuting people for accessing prohibited images) it's a whole other thing to interfere with everyone's access to the internet in order to prevent the behaviour in the first place.

It's an idiotic idea even without talking about peoples rights, because no matter how much money or regulation they throw at it, it won't work.
The only way it would come close to working, would be if they simply banned the Internet entirely.
If Conroy is absolutely dead serious about "protecting children" from the Internet, like he claims he is, then he should have the courage to propose the one and only total solution - cut the cable entirely.
If he's not proposing that, he's just playing games.

Many things about many political systems - including the Westminster Parliamentary system and the USA's Presidential system - are undemocratic.
Something being undemocratic isn't in itself an objection, as a country is run via its Constitution, (or via constitutional conventions if there's no written constitution), not via a view of what is or is not democratic.

However, those parties are not actually attempting to wield any more power than they already have, they are just deciding that maybe it'd be better if they worked together than separately.  They _were_ voted for, and the people that voted for them, wanted them in power.  All together there are more people that wanted them in power, than those that wanted the Conservatives in power.  That would make the fact that the Conservatives are in power undemocratic too, if you wanted to put things in those terms.

Those that did vote for the Conservatives (not for Harper, the only people that voted for Harper, were those in his electorate), will probably be upset, but since they're in the minority, they just have to deal with it.  Just as if they had lost in the first place.

Last edited by mabinogi (2008-12-05 03:57:27)